Scratch

Link to my Scratch Project:

https://scratch.mit.edu/search/projects?q=fortunes+come+here

Resnick et. al., (2009) write that there are three core design principles for Scratch that make it substantially different from programming programs from the past.  These design principles include that Scratch is social, tinkerable and more meaningful.  In this blog I hope to address the ways that these design principles played out in the making of my Scratch Project.

Mitchel Resnick et. al., (2009) have called Scratch “the YouTube of  interactive media”. (pg. 60) This idea of having an audience for the things that we “make” has always interested me and I think it is an important aspect to motivate children.  When I taught kindergarten I used to have students write in their journals daily, sometimes they wrote in structured small groups, sometimes independently and also one-on-one in conferences. After two years, the literacy coach wanted to know exactly how I was teaching writing, as my students were consistently more advanced in writing than the other kindergarteners.  After carefully examining my writing practices, she determined that there were two big differences from my room to the others.  The first was that my students wrote more frequently. Secondly, and significantly here, my students understood that they were going to share their writing pieces.  We shared our writing daily, and in a more formal writing celebration once a month.  My students always knew that they were writing for an audience and that it was something we would discuss socially as a class.  The coach and I both thought this “social/sharing” aspect of writing was very important in inspiring my students to take great pride in their final products and invest more time into the process of writing. In thinking about different programing environments, the fact that Scratch is “social” and can be shared with an online community could mean that the Scratch programmers work harder to make sure that their products are worthy of this community.

This was the case for my Scratch project entitled,  “Fortunes, Where are you?”  My project is about a girl trying to catch her horse, so that they can go for a ride.  But the horse decides to run from the owner, until finally the girl tires of the chase and sits down and the horse comes right to her.  If I had been making this project knowing that no one would see it, I think I may have been satisfied with my first or second version of the movie.  I decided to include two sprites in my production; this meant that the timing between the two scripts had to be tinkered with again and again so that their interactions would line up.  This took great amounts of time and lots of trial and error in my novice standing.  Would I have persisted if I had thought that it was just for my own practice?  I think not.  The sharing/social aspect pushed me to tinker and adapt in greater and greater detail to ensure that the final product was not a disaster. I had to tinker quite a bit with getting the sprites to return to their original positions each time the production began.  This was hard for me to figure out on my own and ultimately I looked to social media to figure it out.  The tinkering and social aspects seemed to be connected and intertwined a bit for me.

This was my first experience programming.  In the past, I have been a consumer of digital information, not a producer.  Resnick et. al, (2009) suggest that, “as we see it, digital fluency requires not just the ability to chat, browse, and interact but also the ability to design, create and invent with new media.” (pg. 62) So, obviously it is time for me to cross-deeper into the realm of digital fluency.  When I began with this Scratch project, I felt like a fish out of water. I began by watching numerous YouTube videos.  I made some very simple projects with the cat, Scratchy, within heavily supported tutorials. I was proud that I had persisted and created a Scratchy project, but Scratchy wasn’t personally meaningful to me.  After I messed around a bit, I decided that I wanted to make a project that was more meaningful to me.  One of the core design principles for Scratch is that they wanted to make it meaningful because the creators understand, “people learn best, and enjoy most, when working on personally meaningful projects.” (Resnick, et. al., pg. 84)  This seemed to be the case with me. I am into equestrian pursuits; therefore making a project about a horse was meaningful to me. I was thinking about how sometimes it’s easy to catch my daughter’s horse (Fortunes) but other days she runs from us, and makes us chase her a bit.  This was the inspiration for my project.

I found this really fun.  I continued to tinker with it over the course of a couple days.  I’d sleep on it and get up the next day, watch it again, fix something, and tinker some more.  Finally, when I was happy with the product I hit the share button!  In Resnick et. al., (2009) they write that Seymour Papert argued that programming language should have a “low floor” (easy to get started) and a “high ceiling” (opportunities to create increasing complex projects over time).  In addition, languages need “wide walls” (support for many different types of projects so people with many different interests and learning styles can all become engaged). (pg. 63) My experience with Scratch demonstrates that the designers of Scratch were successful with creating low floors, wide walls, and high ceilings. 

Toy Hacking

Learning and Tensions around Toy Hacking

During class we were able to take apart electronic toys in a toy hacking maker space.  I began by placing a screwdriver into the seam along the base of my toy car.  It took quite a bit of muscle and other wedging tools to pry the toy car apart.  Many other participants at my table experienced this difficulty and we were surprised to find that the plastic toys are very well constructed.  We figured this indestructible nature of toys is for safety reasons so that kids can’t get inside the toys and accidently swallow small parts.  It is interesting to think about how the fear of lawsuits might affect the construction of toys.

Once inside the toy, I found that what made it move was a really simple mechanism that contained a crank and gear.

 While my toy moved when pulled back and released, it was not electronic and so my quest became finding a way to make it move electronically.  I had to find another gear that would fit and find a way to attach it to a circuit motor (like we used in the scribbling machine) and a battery.    This was very challenging and through trial and error, I  was able to figure out a way to make it all work.  But, first I had to open the car up wider without snapping it in half, and I had to drill a hole in the plastic car.   A classmate suggested using the Dremel automatic drill to do this.  This was all new learning for me.  I had to learn how to work it and how to drill into the toy.  Unfortunately, I got over zealous and drilled too big of a hole and the toy snapped apart just as my time ran out. 

I learned a few new things.  First of all I am proud that I now know how to use a Dremel drill and feel confident that I could use it again. I was struck by how stressed out it made me to not have enough time.  This is a consideration for teachers and something that we have discussed in class. With the frenzied pace of standardized curriculum restraints it is important for teachers to remember that tinkering and design are not activities to be rushed. 

Rusk, Resnick, & Cooke (2009) assert that at the core of the Clubhouse learning approach, young people don’t simply interact with technologies, they design and create with technologies. I felt that this toy hacking activity was a great example of the Clubhouse learning approach and offered multiple entry points to design and creativity.

This is not to say that there aren’t tensions around toy hacking.  I was struck with an comfortableness while taking apart the toy.  This may be a common emotion when it comes to destroying a toy.  If we consider the history of toys back before the 20^th century we know that children had few toys and that they were considered precious.  Additionally, they didn’t have time to play, work dominated their day. So, I think these ideas about toys being coveted and precious somehow stay present in our culture, passing down from one generation to the next, making it hard to dismember a toy.  In movies like Toy Story, Sid is demonized for hacking  toys.  Our culture is full of messages not to destroy or harm toys.  Toy hacking runs counter to the overall themes presented to children about taking care of their things.

I also wonder about the feasibility of doing toy hacking in schools? Schools are so institutionalized in their approach to materials.  Teachers spend so much time teaching kids to “use materials properly”.  Additionally, some children don’t have nice toys at home and therefore asking them to take apart a toy may bring up difficult emotions. Papert (1980) suggests “many children who grow up in our cities are surrounded by the artifacts of science but have good reason to see them as belonging to “the others””.  Similarly, when considering under-resourced populations and schools-it seems unlikely that the opportunity to take apart electronics and toys would be embraced in places that are concerned with preserving their scant resources. Which in turn leaves the educator wondering how to make toy hacking a possibility for all children, not just those in elite schools or afterschool programs.

Build a Scribbling Machine

I packed up the car and left for college with a “state-of-the-art” typewriter in 1987.  It had auto correct and that was innovation. I grew up in a time without cell phones, email or readily accessible computers and I carried a set of encyclopedias to college with me.  Since that day, leaving for college, I feel like I’ve spent most of my time playing “catch up” as digital technology, innovation, and computerization have been whizzing ahead at a break neck speeds. The landscape has changed from one where information was dispensed by librarians and teachers; to a world where information is accessible-- right at our fingertips. The world has changed rapidly, yet many classrooms remain steeped in traditional educational practices and look the same as they did in 1987. This is where there is space for tinkering, connected learning, and creative design to enter schools to bridge this gap.

Last week I spent some time in the MILL making a scribbling/dancing machine. Everything about this project was new to me, I’ve never worked with circuits or the making of small machines. This project follows Constructionist traditions of Seymour Papert.  Like Papert, Resnick and Silverman (2005) both believe, “the best learning experiences for most people, come when they are actively engaged in designing and creating things, especially things that are meaningful to them or others around them.”  I gave my best shot at “learning by designing” (Resnick & Silverman) and came up with this creation called the Ducky Scribbler.

My approach to designing and developing the Ducky Scribbler was slow.  I needed time to understand what a scribbler was.  I began by watching a sample video to get ideas.  This helped me visualize the creation I was charged with designing.  I wanted to see other peoples’ ideas, so I sat back and observed a bit.  Through observing, I  noticed that there were different types of motors that I could choose from.  When I connected my motor to the battery, it was slow and quiet.  Ceci, who was beside me, had a very loud and fast motor.  I decided to figure out what made them different.  First, I thought it was the battery and that my battery was not fully charged, thus making my motor slower.  After some exploration with Ceci’s battery, I realized that it wasn’t the battery at all, but the motor.  This “feedback” helped me understand the phenomena.  Then, I closely examined the two motors and found some differences, then I set out to find another motor. 

I found the most complicated looking motor and switched out my old one for the bigger more intricate one.  Returning to my seat, I tried it out and realized that I needed to add something to the motor to give it traction.  It had an axle with prongs  that needed tires or something to push it along. I tried to wrap the prongs in pipe cleaners, these seemed too slippery, so I took them off and Iset out to find something different.   I came across some little wooden beads and taped them onto the axel with duct tape.  They were like the bumpy nubs on heavily tractioned mountain bike tires. With a few minor adjustments, they seemed to work to give traction to create acceleration. I was on my way to a scribbling machine. I was undergoing the process called tinkering as defined by Wilkinson & Petrich (2014);

“Fooling around directly with phenomena, tools, and materials. It’s thinking with your hands and learning through doing. It’s slowing down and getting curious about the mechanics and mysteries of the everyday stuff around you. It’s whimsical, enjoyable, and fraught with dead ends, frustrating, and ultimately about inquiry. It’s also about making something, but for us, that thing reveals itself to you as you go. Because when you tinker, you’re not following a step-by-step set of directions that leads to a tidy end result. Instead, you’re questioning your assumptions about the way something works, and you’re investigating it on your own terms. You’re giving yourself permission to fiddle with this and dabble with that. And chances are, you’re also blowing your own mind.”(p.14)

Wilkinson and Petrich (2014) discuss the tenants of tinkering and my favorite advice that they offer has to do with the process of trial and error.  This process is new to those of us that grew up trying to memorize solutions and rules and thought that failure and errors were bad. Wilkinson and Petrich advise that tinkerers should, “Treat each of the problems that arise as a problem to play with—rather than a problem to solve—and practice working through times of frustration without judging yourself. You’ll find that you develop an astonishing capacity for new understandings.” (p. 15)  This principle helped me to be more playful in my approach to learning.  What a wonderful gift this invitation and permission is to children in learning situations. 

Once I had the motor working, I decided to put it on the yogurt cup and see if I could make it work.  I first taped it down but then realized quickly that I couldn’t adjust the height of the “wheels” if they were taped.  I saw others using rubber bands to attach pieces and decided to try that.  I found that part of my own design process was social and involved watching what other people did with their materials.  I did some comparison as I watched other designs emerge. This observation led to adjustments that afforded more opportunity to adjust the markers and motor to ensure that they were level.  Another successful fail and rework.

Basically in the process of learning to make a new artifact, I sought support through youtube, observation of others, social interactions, tinkering, and tinkering more.  Being playful in this approach helped me.  I had fun making and tinkering. We must move this work into classrooms and allow students to experience the fun of learning. 

In rethinking schools and learning, I think its critical that educators focus on finding ways to approach learning that don’t reify one way to “do school”.  Schooling that offers multiple access points through connected learning and constructionist activities, will provide students who may consider themselves, or who may be positioned as failing, another way to success. Turkle (2007) writes about evocative objects in a way that is consistent with this notion of multiple access points to learning.  She says that when we focus on objects, “physicians and philosophers, psychologists and designers, artists and engineers are able to find common ground in everyday experience.  This common ground found through design, creativity, objects and concrete learning seems to be what is missing in school.

Resnick, M., & Silverman, B. (2005). Some Reflections on Designing Constructinon Kits for Kids. Proceedings of Interaction Design and Children conference, Boulder, CO.

Turkle, S. (2007). “Evocative Objects: Things We Think With.” Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wilkinson, K., & Petrich, M., (2014). The Art of Tinkering.